Read entities from a FIWARE context broker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the request goes directly from this machine to the broker (network egress, no intermediary), and results are flattened into a specific record shape. It does not discuss auth requirements or error behavior, keeping it at a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the return shape, then the usage cue. Dense but each sentence carries information; the parenthetical broker list is slightly verbose but justified for disambiguation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the flat record shape (id, type, attribute values with units, lat/lon, observedAt). Combined with full schema coverage for the 7 parameters, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/error handling is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly maps to the api parameter by mentioning NGSI-LD and NGSIv2, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read entities from a FIWARE context broker'), names the concrete broker implementations and protocols, and describes the returned shape. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_digital_twins or validate_ifc without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it 'to see what live data a broker offers before linking it to a model', which gives a clear triggering context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.